Let GM go Bankrupt

@hawkeye10,

You tend to agree with the extreme right more than with anyone else.

0 Replies

Here is a good example about the lack of competition in the auto industry. For many years, the basic formats were sedan/coupe, station wagon, sports car/muscle car. Chrysler came up with the mini-van and the herds followed. Then, the Jeep, once an independent product that grew out of the need of the American Army for a reconnaissance vehicle, became widely imitated.

The most recent format change was Chrysler's P.T. Cruiser with its nostalgic styling and is sizing between a coupe and a Cooper mini. It immediately established a market niche. What happened then? Why GM ripped off the idea with the HHR.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Quote:

Chrysler's P.T. Cruiser with its nostalgic styling and is sizing between a coupe and a Cooper mini. It immediately established a market niche.

and almost as immediately lost it, because while it was a great design it was a piece of **** car. Chrysler never backed it up with good engineering.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

That's how my mechanic son describes the P.T. Cruiser although he said the HHR is worse.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

The funny thing is Chrysler was once known, at least in Detroit, for its engineering and for higher the best engineers in any given class.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

A guy I worked with for several years had one, he was in love with it. He did not make much money and a new PT Cruiser was his first splurging on himself in many years. I remember the day he got it, and the first couple of months when he could not stop talking about it. I also remember the heartbreak when in less than a year he began to have nonstop trouble with it. I also remember the day he got rid of it, taking a huge financial bath, after spending many hours of aggravation and some money too trying to get it right.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Am I the only one perplexed by this statement? Does this make sense to everyone else but me? So, hawkeye, curiosity gets the best of me, can you explain this in as short of a paragraph as possible, because it makes about as much sense as saying oil has more in common with water than any mixture of the two
as a radical on the left I am much more more in tune with radicals on the right than I am with moderates. Radicals of all stripes believe that there is something profoundly wrong with America, and share a respect for others who see this and want to fix this, even if the most important parts of the problem and best fixes are not agreed to. When I talk with radicals on the right we pretty much have a common view of the problem, of the nature of the breakdown.

I suspect that your confusion stems from you thinking that I am talking about extreme reds and extreme blue being close, and this is not what I am saying. In my experience extreme righties have no more use for the GOP then I have for the DEMS, were are not partisans, we instead share a contempt for both parties.

Well, according to your definition, I am not even close to an extreme rightee then, as I have been accused of here. I don't always agree that the GOP has always done things right, but I certainly have infinitely more respect for them as being at least sane, as opposed to the wild eyed leftist and ultra liberal Democratic Party, which I think is so far off the reservation as to not be even close to being even American in the traditional sense of the word. So, I have no contempt at all for Republicans. I agree approximately with the basic beliefs of Republicans, and I certainly cannot say the same for the Democratic Party, that I believe has totally been taken over by radicals and has lost its way as a political party.

I believe I am about as close to traditional true blue American as there is. I believe in the constitution, freedom, liberty, and the traditions of America, which includes captialism, not ultra socialism. I believe America has been a source for good in this world, and I believe in the ability and responsibility of individuals, not government, to take care of ourselves, and that is as purely American as there is. And there is no doubt in my mind that these things line up much closer to today's GOP than the Democratic Party. I heard Rush say recently that liberalism is the true enemy of this country, not one party or the other, and to the extent that liberalism controls either party, that party is bad for the country. I agree with that. Liberalism is the drift toward no principles and the lack of making a stand for right against wrong. Liberalism must be defeated wherever it resides, and right now it completely controls the Democratic Party.

2 Replies

@okie,

I would add a comment to my above post, I think the political philosophy expressed by Dwight D. Eisenhower in the thread that I started, which contains the article he wrote - titled "Why I am a Republican," his political philosophy pretty closely mirrors what I also believe politically. He believes in individual rights and responsibilities, and he also believes that the government is not the answer to all of our problems, in fact quite the opposite, the government all too often is the problem. Here is the link:
http://able2know.org/topic/144183-1

1 Reply

@okie,

As Republicans keep trying to crawl into women birth canal I am not impress by the claims that they wish to allow people in individual rights and responsibilities.

Second government is surely not the solution to all problems but it is damn well the solutions to some.

0 Replies

@okie,

You contradicted your own post. I also suspect that you have no idea what hawkeye said.

Anyone who says the Democrats are "Wild eyed leftists and ultra liberal" refuses to know anything about politics and political science.

BTW, in no way is America a source of good for the world.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Quote:

BTW, in no way is America a source of good for the world.

LOL...............

I had not idea what country you are a citizen of but without the US you more then likely would had now been under the kind thumb now of either the German, Japanese or Russian Empires.

It is a shame that we can not ship fools like you off to some parallel universe where you could find out for sure how you would had enjoy a world without the US.

3 Replies

@BillRM,

it brings to mind the paraphrase "america sucks, except when compared to the rest of the nations".

0 Replies

@BillRM,

We pollute. We allow the production of materials that other countries refuse because they are carcinogens or pollutants.

We dominate. We have always thought it was cute that our brands are known through out the world.

We destroy on the commercial level. Look at the European businesses Americans have purchased and gutted.

We attack other countries in a way that should be pursued under international law.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Hey, sugar, you're the one that is doing harm to the planet.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

We pollute. We allow the production of materials that other countries refuse because they are carcinogens or pollutants.

We dominate. We have always thought it was cute that our brands are known through out the world.

We destroy on the commercial level. Look at the European businesses Americans have purchased and gutted.

We attack other countries in a way that should be pursued under international law.

To every liberal on this forum, this is what you become if you follow the liberal indoctrination to its extreme end result. Isn't it so inspiring and beautiful? I hope you likc the philosophy you are following, as pom can be the poster child of your movement.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

Doing harm my rear end............

You what to see harm go take a tour of the former soviet block of nations.

0 Replies

another indication that the save GM plan is not going so well

Quote:

DETROIT (AP) -- If your credit isn't good, General Motors Co. still wants to sell you a car.

The problem is, it can't. At least not in big numbers. That's why the automaker wants more control over its lending again.

GM's top North American executive Mark Reuss, under pressure to quickly sell more cars and boost GM's value as it gets ready to sell stock to the public, said a shortage of subprime lending is holding back sales in the U.S.

But the automaker's main lender, Ally Financial Inc., has little appetite for risky loans, having spent the last few years cleaning up its own financial mess caused mainly by its failing mortgage lending business. Both companies are majority-owned by the U.S. government

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GM-wants-more-subprime-buyers-apf-3905021737.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=4&asset=&ccode=

do we really want the uS government through a company it owns to make loans that no one else will because the risk is too high? Have we not just had a lesson in risk, and the cost of bad loans? We have not learned a damn thing have we........

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Too big of a risk you got to be kidding me!

Making cars loans is too big of a risk when the banking system almost ruin the whole damn world economic using it free market judgment concerning risks and causing the housing bubble.

Now that same banking system after being given almost free money by the Fed is not willing to make car loans to people with good credit ratings.

Sorry but I see little problem with making secure loans for cars to people with good credit ratings and by doing so keeping a large part of the manufacturing capability of the country intact.

We can let GM do it and the taxpayers keep the profit as shareholders of GM or we can light a fire under the banks to used some of the free money we are giving them by way of Fed discount window to keep the economic moving.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

It's an old operational model. If something doesn't work, try more of the same. Lots more.

1 Reply

@roger,

The manufacturing part of the economic was not the problem here it was the banking part that is still causing problems for no good reason but by your and Hawkeye logic we should allow them to keep on doing so with our funds at that.

2 Replies

Let GM go Bankrupt

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know